memory_betafandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Bell'Orso
Disambigs Btw, when moving articles and creating disambiguation pages, please make sure that you clean up the links afterward to ensure that they all link to the appropriate articles. When you changed the names on the different "Arin" characters, you left all of the links pointing to the disambiguation page. Thanks. -- sulfur 13:08, February 18, 2011 (UTC) See that note above from earlier this year? Please take a moment to read it anew. There was a lot of cleanup on the "USS Vesta" article after you arbitrarily made it a disambig page. -- sulfur 20:03, October 17, 2011 (UTC) Further to disambiguation pages, check out the changes I made here to your disambiguation page for "USS Sparrow". We're trying to simplify the way the pages are presented, and make them useful to both readers and editors. This means that the only links should be the disambiguation links, and those links should show what the actual link is. Thanks! -- sulfur (talk) 16:27, September 16, 2012 (UTC) Bell: Can you check out the top two comments in this section please? When you turned Taryl into a disambig page, you neglected to clean up any of the incoming links. Thanks. -- sulfur (talk) 12:54, September 20, 2012 (UTC) Again. See above. Please clean up the INCOMING LINKS TO THE DISAMBIG PAGE. -- sulfur (talk) 17:11, February 11, 2013 (UTC) Alright, this is time #6. Seriously. Don't just move stuff and change the source into disambiguation pages. Actually fix the incoming links. It's really not that tough to do. -- sulfur (talk) 12:28, July 7, 2013 (UTC) Categories without links/conetent hi, i don't know if you missed the discussion about the new category tree, but i saw you create some new categories today -- you apparently missed the main point of why we discussed it. this is a detail about all categories, not just the new structure we were discussing. i pointed out that expanding categorizations depended on using proper links, content and sort keys -- so i became somewhat confused when i saw that you have created BLANK categories - with no proper links, categorization or content. Pretty Please, With Sugar On Top, Stop Creating Blank Categories. is there another way i could ask? - Captain MKB 01:05, August 19, 2014 (UTC) Star Trek mapping project Hey Bell'Orso. I'm Brandon, Senior Community Manager at Wikia. We're working on a new Star Trek project as part of the Wikia Fan Studio. To give a bit of context, Fan Studio is a program where fans on Wikia can be connected with brands from the entertainment and video gaming industries. Fans get to interact with brands and share opinions that could impact final products and releases, or whatever it may be that a partner brand is working on. This project doesn't have a partner brand involved, but it will let you be part of Fan Studio and other future projects. This Star Trek project is based around Wikia Maps, and participants will be mapping different parts of the Star Trek universe. Participants will get to help decide what we should map as well. It could be the layout of the Enterprise, or Voyager's journey through the Delta Quadrant, or even more light-hearted subjects like Captain Kirk's romantic liaisons throughout the galaxy. Whatever the participants end up deciding. The maps that the project participants create will live on Trek Initiative, plus any other community that wants to can embed them. As an active contributor on Memory Beta, we think you'd be great for this project. Would you like to join? Let me know on my talk page. Thanks! - [[User:Brandon Rhea|'Brandon Rhea']](talk) 23:41, November 18, 2014 (UTC) Link corrections Hi Bell'Orso. You beat me to it again ;) I got called away as I hit "publish" on the unnamed type-7 shuttlecraft article and when I got back I noticed my error. Too late, it seems. Thanks for "cleaning up" after me again. -- Cyfa (talk) 19:13, December 7, 2014 (UTC) :Heh! Yeah, I really wanted to stay away and let you do your thing, but redlinks to such well-known topics just compel me to correct the error. But now I think I'm gonna work on Mitrios instead. Moving it to a disambiguated name and turning the original into a disambig page, etc. Last time I did that I never did any cleanup afterwards, so this'll be a test for me to see if I've got it down this time. I'll know I failed once Sulfur starts complaining again. - Bell'Orso (talk) 19:23, December 7, 2014 (UTC) ::Scratch that. Apparently, it's policy to have the shuttle keep its pure name as the page title where possible and have the disambig page have " (disambiguation)" in the title instead, so I just created the disambig page. - Bell'Orso (talk) 19:41, December 7, 2014 (UTC) Galaxy X image Hey, where's that image from? you know why i am asking, i hope -- Captain MKB 22:23, December 27, 2014 (UTC) :Gah! I thought it was from the Star Trek Fact Files, just like the side view of the standard Galaxy class also on this wiki, but looking at it again it seems someone actually took a scan of that and 'shopped it. Sorry. Haven't actually looked at my Fact Files in ages. Took 'em out today to try and cite some images this wiki has from there, but couldn't find this view of the Galaxy X. :But the one you uploaded doesn't look right either. In fact, your version looks like a 'shopped version of the standard Galaxy class taken from the TNG Tech Manual (unless the Galaxy X actually appeared in there, will have to check). The Fact Files orthos schematics are always colored on a black background. - Bell'Orso (talk) 23:12, December 27, 2014 (UTC) ::i have a third party source, the Ex Astris Scientia has that B&W image credited to Fact Files. Theyre usually pretty accurate there, the image sources. the only catch is it won't tell me which issue --- Captain MKB 23:21, December 27, 2014 (UTC) :::I thought your version looked familiar. I had actually taken my version off of there as well, but it seems that it's just one of Bernd's personal 'shops. However, your version has definitely been altered as well. Looking at its lines again, it might well have been traced from a Fact Files schematic, but as I said, those were differently colored (that is, a different color for side view, front view, top view, etc.) lines on black background. I've never found un-shopped scans of the Fact Files schematics for the Galaxy X, only for some other vessels. And I have been looking for years. - Bell'Orso (talk) 23:29, December 27, 2014 (UTC) ::i feel like there might be a rarer version of Fact Files, or Bernd's reference might be a typo. there are a lot of european publications that republish other books, this might be such a case -- some sort of rare fact files print run with b&w images? otherwise we're just without an official version of the image. all these ones on the net come from third parties. -- Captain MKB 00:29, December 28, 2014 (UTC) :::Don't think so. I think he just doesn't bother to mention that the images have been retouched/color-corrected, since that is irrelevant for his purposes. He just wants to share these pictures with the fans, regardless of whether they come from official sources or were made by other fans. So yeah, that does leave us without an official schematic for the Galaxy X, unless you'd be content with attaching a note that the image has been altered or something. I think I saw something like that one one of the other images in the GE Fabbri category. - Bell'Orso (talk) 09:02, December 28, 2014 (UTC)